A
grand jury investigates and analyzes a given case along with their
potential defendants, to decide whether there is merit to their
allegations. An indictment (sealed or otherwise) is one probable
outcome of this grand jury process. If unsealed, the court may then
proceed with a preliminary trial.

So,
how does the whole process work? And what is the rationale behind it?

Let’s
find out!

The
Grand Jury Process and the Fifth Amendment

Grand
juries are generally reserved for felonies or potentially federal
cases. While all states may not require this process to begin a state
criminal proceedings, a fair number do. The fifth amendment, however,
makes it a mandatory first step in the case of all federal crimes.

The
Role of the Jury

(Article Continues Below Advertisement)

The
role of the grand jury is to examine the case, along with the
gathered evidence and evaluate witness testimonies in a private
hearing. This takes place ex-parte (without the alleged suspect),
examining the presentation of facts by the prosecutor.

If
the majority of the jury believes in issuing a formal indictment, the
prosecutor can set things in motion, and take things to trial.
Depending on the jurisdiction, the decision must be supported by at
least 2/3 or 3/4 of the jury.

Sometimes,
the jury may also choose to keep these indictments hidden from public
records. This is especially common in cases involving high profile
suspects.

The
number of sealed indictments has been a subject shrouded in
controversy and speculation. Due to the spread of misinformation and
the conspiratorial nature of these cases, unbiased perspectives like
the sgt
report are
essential resources.

The
Purpose of the System

The
purpose is to ensure that every criminal proceeding against a person
is exercised with due diligence and probable cause. It awards
protection to the reputation of suspects, lest they are unfairly
judged in the court of public opinion.

The
grand jury process also creates a safe space for witnesses to testify
without the potentially intimidating presence of the accused. It
allows the jury and the prosecutor to truly test the evidence before
putting in the effort and resources to carry out trial proceedings.

Only
felonies are subject to the grand jury process. Misdemeanor
charges are
left entirely to the discretion of the prosecutor.

Grand
Jury vs Trial Jury: What’s the Difference?

The
first major difference is the grand jury proceedings occur ex-parte.
A trial jury examines the merit of a respective case, with the
prosecution and defense alike. Where the grand jury and prosecutor
have full reign over the proceedings, a trial jury includes the
counsel for the defendant.

In
normal proceedings, the defense counsel can cross-examine and put
forth their own side as well. A grand jury process remains a
one-sided, private affair, with no judge or public access.

The
rationale or standard
of proof determining
decisions is also somewhat different. Since the trial jury hears both
sides, they make their decision based on the presence or absence of
“reasonable doubt”. A grand jury, on the other hand, comes
to a decision based on the concept of “probable cause” for
prosecution.

The
Criticisms

Like
every legal system, the grand jury process has been a subject of
immense critique. Let’s examine the three major criticisms against
it.

1.
The Jury

The
verdict is decided exclusively by a jury, and not a judge. This calls
into question the credentials of the jury members. The jury often
consists of laypeople with no specific knowledge of law or
investigative abilities that ensure a satisfactory process.

They
are not subjected to a systematic screening process, nor checked for
potential biases towards or against the suspect in question. They are
simply called to analyze the facts as put forth by the prosecutor.

2.
The Conflict of Rights

The
fifth amendment calls for a grand jury process in federal crimes.
However, due to its “ex-parte” nature, this process does
not fully examine the case in its entirety, and only on its face
value. This is almost in direct contradiction of the
defendant’s sixth
amendment right to
their own legal counsels and cross-examinations.

3.
An Unfair Bias?

Its
exclusionary nature might also create an environment that promotes
bias. Where the grand jury started off as a mechanism to prevent
unfounded criminal charges, the critiques argue that it has lost its
purpose.

Most
argue to the contrary – that the grand jury is more of a tool in the
prosecutor’s arsenal to initiate proceedings and present facts in a
manner that best represents a single side making it devoid of
context.

The
jury’s absence of professional legal training in the face of a
prosecutor also puts the latter in a position of power that might be
subject to abuse. The term “runaway
grand jury”
explores this possibility of the prosecution being unfairly
influenced or directly involved in the case.

Points
of Contention: Probable Reforms?

In
the wake of questionable verdicts, systematic criticisms, and skewed
public perception, the need for reforms is increasingly discussed.

Some
of these reform ideas include better instructions to jury members and
witnesses about their rights and obligations and, easier access to
transcripts of the grand jury process for defendants.

Like
what you read? Explore our blog for more political perspectives on
current, relevant issues in the USA and worldwide!